Anti-cannabis molecule discovered

[Shadrack]

Actually most alcoholics drink beer and they drink ~1 a day or less. 

 

I have an alcoholic drink maybe once or twice a week, but sometimes go weeks without it.  Am I an alcoholic according to you?  I'm allergic to beer (but used to love drinking it) :(.

 

IMO, someone who drinks 1 beer a day or less may or may not be a clinical "alcoholic" but I don't think that they necessarily have a drinking problem.  I know people who have had drinking and other drug  problems and if they lessened their intake to 1 drink a day or less most who know them would consider them "cured".

[trooper11]

roflmao. Not sure what point you were making. But yeah, you can become water intoxicated and die. But know this, if you drink too much water and drive you'll probably get to your destination OK. If you drink too much alcohol and smoke too much weed and get behind the wheel, God help whoever crosses your path.

 

The good side to all these ropeheads? THC makes girls more pliable if you need that. Hey, so does alcohol. Water not so much. LMAO. I'm gonna be laughing about this one for my whole workout today.

 

+1

No real point, just saying that things can kill you when you do it in too large a quantity.

As you said, what we all consider as drugs can have a serious affect on standard behavior without killing you.

 

 

That's the point. This report is such B.S! The language is completely wrong! It's trying to put pot in the same addictive category as Cigarettes Alcohol or Coffee in terms of addiction. Pot is not addictive period! What are the withdrawal symptoms if it's addictive? It's not addictive it?s habitual. Governments and anti-pot groups have been spreading this kind of FUD for decades. This coming is coming from a non-user of the substance by the way.

Aren't we splitting hairs though? I mean lets forget all the terminology BS, but isn't it possible to be addicted to pot like you would with other drugs?

I mean lets not make a sweeping generalization here. Some are affecting negatively by drugs, including pot. Its like pot is a person and there is this need to defend its honor or something. Its just a drug after all. Some have little to no ill affects, some have a lot. People are different.

 

 

one politicians excuse for driving dangerously at high speeds was that he need the toilet... so... hey just saying... most people know not to get in a car after drinking and im sure it is the same with smoking.

The problem is that it only takes one person getting into a car after smoking or drinking to cause people to react negatively and demand something be done.

Heck, lets face it, most laws that are there for everyone's protection came about thanks to the irresponsibility of a few, not the majority.

So arguing that most are able to handle it just wont fly.

 

 

There is a difference between physical addiction and mental addiction.

That makes sense, but it's not really good for the person or people around them if they are mentally or physically addicted to something in situations where that addiction can affect how they behave.

[shadowgmo]

I don't care if people smoke whatever they want (I don't agree at all with drugs (alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc)) but with I don't agree is people not respecting those who doesn't do any of those.

 

In my country, people will smoke in bus stops, outside restaurants (smoke will go to people who is using the sidewalk), outside workplaces (again people who doesn't smoke will have to breath the smoke), etc so I'm guessing that if marijuana is allowed people will do the same in public places and mess with people).

[brotherfromanothermother]

"addiction" is noting more than a behavioral classification and it's used to push agenda's. Isn't it common in France that people drink wine at there main meal? So in theory half of France are addicted to wine! I find it laughable that most people spout out this or that "is addictive so don't do it". imv using the word to push agendas degrades people's moral and intellectual standing.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

weed is a good thing. both recreationally and medically. members of my family have done official research on this, which obviously I can not go in-depth about. there is very little wrong with it and there is no addictive substance within it you CANNOT get physically addicted to it and if you get mentally addicted then you are bound to get addicted to something else instead. yes I know THC is a pysco active (forgive my spelling) and it can affect people from a young age if taken obsessively but research is inconclusive when it comes to saying if people affected already or were likley to have developed issues within the brain.

but that THC is also the recreational relaxing part which can help in certain situations I could write an article longer then the one you posted on why THC has its benefits along with its medical CBD counter part but we would be here all replying with simular lengths 

 

Psychological addiction affects the brain, which is part of the body. Therefore psychological addiction (or "mentally addicted" as you put it) is still technically a physical addiction. Many neurologists/psychologists think there should not be a line drawn between "psychological" and "physical" addiction. 

 

Does your family's "official research" involve simply smoking weed and comparing experiences or are they scientists? "weed is a good thing" seems like a very stupid thing to say. 

[Hardcore Til I Die]

"addiction" is noting more than a behavioral classification and it's used to push agenda's. Isn't it common in France that people drink wine at there main meal? So in theory half of France are addicted to wine! I find it laughable that most people spout out this or that "is addictive so don't do it". imv using the word to push agendas degrades people's moral and intellectual standing.

 

Drinking a glass of wine with a main meal, even if you do it every day, doesn't mean you're addicted to wine. 

 

Even if you do something every day, if you can give it up without craving or experiencing withdrawal symptoms, you're not addicted to it.

 

E.g. I like to have a glass of diet coke (or similar) at least once a day, but it causes me no hardship or withdrawal symptoms when I go without it for a few days. 

[MorganX]

"addiction" is noting more than a behavioral classification and it's used to push agenda's. Isn't it common in France that people drink wine at there main meal? So in theory half of France are addicted to wine! I find it laughable that most people spout out this or that "is addictive so don't do it". imv using the word to push agendas degrades people's moral and intellectual standing.

 

I wonder what "agenda" people are pushing on heroin addicts, oxycontin addicts, even Adderall addicts. Crack addicts, cocaine addicts. The only debate is the drugs that have what I would call, sustainable deleterious effects like weed. Some people can drive on it, their reaction time and motor skills aren't degraded enough to cause them to be a danger (yet) some cannot. Some girls are naked after one or two tokes, some girls leave with their dignity after they've smoked it all up.

 

Really, nothing but a classification to push an "agenda." Come on now.

[SierraSonic]

http://www.addictionz.com/addictions.htm

 

Just look at this list of addictions people, ANY action that can be repeated and is considered enjoyable can count as an addiction.

 

Most people are addicted because they enjoy a certain activity, the problem happens when people NEED that activity to enjoy anything.

[MorganX]

http://www.addictionz.com/addictions.htm

 

Just look at this list of addictions people, ANY action that can be repeated and is considered enjoyable can count as an addiction.

 

Most people are addicted because they enjoy a certain activity, the problem happens when people NEED that activity to enjoy anything.

 

Or to maintain their normal daily disposition or perform routine daily activities with competence?

[Ravensky]

Yes but look beyond that and what this could mean, in that this would mean that medical marijuana would be just that for medicinal uses only and there would be no reason for the medicinal side to not be legalized.  Medicinal marijuana is an amazing natural remedy for so many different effects of cancer, pain, inflammation, etc. If was legalized and sold cheap it would help a LOT of people.  Sadly I think this will never happen as your BIG BIG money pharmaceutical companies will never let this happen.   :/

 

It blocks the activity of THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana. It could lead to a treatment for marijuana addiction, which is an increasing problem.

My comment was that perhaps a vaccine could be produced so there would be no "high" in new users, discouraging use from day one.

[TPreston]

Yes but look beyond that and what this could mean, in that this would mean that medical marijuana would be just that for medicinal uses only and there would be no reason for the medicinal side to not be legalized.  Medicinal marijuana is an amazing natural remedy for so many different effects of cancer, pain, inflammation, etc. If was legalized and sold cheap it would help a LOT of people.  Sadly I think this will never happen as your BIG BIG money pharmaceutical companies will never let this happen.   :/

Change the record, (S)CAM is big business largely unregulated.

[thomastmc]

Drug addiction, and addiction in general, is plagued by myths, misunderstanding, and misinformation. Most people, even addicts, don't really understand what addiction is or why they're addicted.
 
The vast majority of recreational drug users are not addicted, even coke and heroin users.
 
BTW, seeking rehab for cannabis addiction is like going to rehab for coffee addiction :)
 

18. Anyone who uses drugs too much or too often will become ?addicted?: We know ?addiction? doesn't occur in everyone, any more than diabetes occurs in everyone who eats too much sugar or food. It now appears that a person must "have what it takes" to become dependent on drugs. In many cases, genetics is the main risk factor for determining who develops the disease.

19. Drugs cause ?addiction?: An interesting scientific question is: If drugs cause ?addiction?, then why doesn?t everyone who uses drugs too much, too often, become dependent (?addicted?)? Scientists are looking into genetic and other unknown factors that cause some people to become dependent while sparing others of this brain pathology.

22. ?Addicts? are bad, crazy, or stupid: Evolving research is demonstrating that ?addicts? (people who are dependent according to DSM criteria) are not bad people who need to get good, crazy people who need to get sane, or stupid people who need education. Chemically-dependent people have a brain disease that goes beyond their use of drugs.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/myths.html

[MorganX]

Drug addiction, and addiction in general, is plagued by myths, misunderstanding, and misinformation. Most people, even addicts, don't really understand what addiction is or why they're addicted.

 

The vast majority of recreational drug users are not addicted, even coke and heroin users.

 

BTW, seeking rehab for cannabis addiction is like going to rehab for coffee addiction :)

 

 

coke I might be able to side with you on recreational coke users not being addicted (though most regular users are, they just haven't hit rock bottom. Some drugs are less acutely destructive). But heroin, I want to meet the regular heroin user that isn't addicted. There are those rare people that can't get addicted or don't, I shouldn't say cant. But to say the vast majority of heroin users aren't addicted I think is not to be taken seriously. They as well, haven't hit rock bottom yet. When they can no longer get the heroin, their addiction will reveal itself.

 

And remember, Crack is a form of cocaine.

[psionicinversion]

Tosh, I have one bottled beer a day, so that makes me an alcoholic? I like a drink but I am in no way an alcoholic. Alcoholics normally drink heavy volumed drinks like spirits to get drunk quicker. They won't stop at 2 or 3 though. They will keep going and going until they fall asleep or just run out. 

 

thats not actually true... if your thinking about having a beer when you get home or at night everyday.... then your a mild alcoholic most ppl associate alcoholism as ppl who get samshed everyday and drink till they pass out its not entirely true.... mild forms come in needing a drink when you get home from work. Still the same, you crave for something you dont get it you may get annoyed... addicted... alcoholic

[thomastmc]

coke I might be able to side with you on recreational coke users not being addicted (though most regular users are, they just haven't hit rock bottom. Some drugs are less acutely destructive). But heroin, I want to meet the regular heroin user that isn't addicted. There are those rare people that can't get addicted or don't, I shouldn't say cant. But to say the vast majority of heroin users aren't addicted I think is not to be taken seriously. They as well, haven't hit rock bottom yet. When they can no longer get the heroin, their addiction will reveal itself.

 

And remember, Crack is a form of cocaine.

 

You're thinking in the confines of the mythos and misinformation of how and why drugs are addictive. 

 

As stated in the myths about addiction that I quoted, it's not the drug that's addictive, it's the person. Whether someone becomes chemically dependent on a drug is based upon whether they're afflicted by a brain disease/disorder.

 

Most people who use drugs are not chemically dependent, whether they've hit rock bottom or not. Most never need to hit rock bottom, because they've never even come close to it as a result of drug use. Only about 10-15% of drug users are quote/unquote "problem users".

 

Keep in mind too, heroin is a powder as well, that can be snorted and smoked just like cocaine. Most recreational heroin users probably don't use it intravenously.

[riahc3]

Hello,

I have an alcoholic drink maybe once or twice a week, but sometimes go weeks without it.  Am I an alcoholic according to you?

Yes, according to HawkMan, you are not only a alcoholic but you are actually worst than those that drink it daily.

I actually laughed while typing that :laugh:

[MorganX]

 

You're thinking in the confines of the mythos and misinformation of how and why drugs are addictive. 

 

As stated in the myths about addiction that I quoted, it's not the drug that's addictive, it's the person. Whether someone becomes chemically dependent on a drug is based upon whether they're afflicted by a brain disease/disorder.

 

Most people who use drugs are not chemically dependent, whether they've hit rock bottom or not. Most never need to hit rock bottom, because they've never even come close to it as a result of drug use. Only about 10-15% of drug users are quote/unquote "problem users".

 

Keep in mind too, heroin is a powder as well, that can be snorted and smoked just like cocaine. Most recreational heroin users probably don't use it intravenously.

 

You want to take me back to college chemistry and biology. Most brain disorders are chemical in nature. Taking various narcotics, disrupt chemical balance and brain function. It's a chicken/egg semantically argument. One can define addition to drugs as chemical dependency.

[thomastmc]

You want to take me back to college chemistry and biology. Most brain disorders are chemical in nature. Taking various narcotics, disrupt chemical balance and brain function. It's a chicken/egg semantically argument. One can define addition to drugs as chemical dependency.

 

Your college chemistry and biology classes must've been extremely elemental for the sheer mention of chemical dependency to urge you back so easily  :)

 

It's not semantic at all. It's specifically defined on the page I quoted earlier from the University of Texas at Austin's Addiction Science Research and Education Center. You should read it, at the risk of feeling like you're back in college ;)

 

 

9. Crack is more addicting than cocaine powder: While there are more ?crack? ?addicts? observed on the streets, this is probably because crack is cheaper and easier to obtain than cocaine powder. But there is no pharmacological reason why the form of a drug or the route of administration should change the ?addiction? liability of a drug. In fact, science is beginning to realize that the drug is not the cause of ?addiction?; rather, the susceptibility of the person to the drug determines how much ?addiction? (dependence) develops.

18. Anyone who uses drugs too much or too often will become ?addicted?: We know ?addiction? doesn't occur in everyone, any more than diabetes occurs in everyone who eats too much sugar or food. It now appears that a person must "have what it takes" to become dependent on drugs. In many cases, genetics is the main risk factor for determining who develops the disease.

22. ?Addicts? are bad, crazy, or stupid: Evolving research is demonstrating that ?addicts? (people who are dependent according to DSM criteria) are not bad people who need to get good, crazy people who need to get sane, or stupid people who need education. Chemically-dependent people have a brain disease that goes beyond their use of drugs.

 

---------------

Chemical (Drug) Abuse

I.A maladaptive pattern of drug use leading to impairment or distress, presenting as one or more of the following in a 12-month period:

1.recurrent use leading to failure to fulfill major obligations

2.recurrent use which is physically hazardous

3.recurrent drug-related legal problems

4.continued use despite social or interpersonal problems

1.The symptoms have never met the criteria for chemical dependence.

------------------

Chemical (Drug) Dependence

I.A maladaptive pattern of drug use, leading to impairment or distress, presenting as three or more of the following in a 12-month period:

1.tolerance to the drug's actions

2.withdrawal

3.drug is used more than intended

4.there is an inability to control drug use

5.effort is expended to obtain the drug

6.important activities are replaced by drug use

7.drug use continues despite knowledge of a persistent physical or psychological problem

II.Two types of dependence can occur:

A) with physiological dependence (including either items 1 or 2), or

B) without physiological dependence (including neither items 1 nor 2).

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/myths.html

[MorganX]

 

Your college chemistry and biology classes must've been extremely elemental for the sheer mention of chemical dependency to urge you back so easily  :)

 

It's not semantic at all. It's specifically defined on the page I quoted earlier from the University of Texas at Austin's Addiction Science Research and Education Center. You should read it, at the risk of feeling like you're back in college ;)

 

 

 

Welcome to (1) College "research" center and their (2) hypothesis and (3) ambiguity as illustrated in "your" examples:

 

Ambiguity to support a hypothesis: "science is beginning to learn". Would science be the Austin Research Center or someone else?

 

Hypothesis and Ambiguity: It appears that a person must have, wait, here comes the empirical scientific term "what it takes" to ... here it comes ... "become dependent on drugs."

 

"Evolving", meaning still changing, research... according to DSM criteria (that would be selecting a specific set of criteria that supports their hypothesis.)

 

What we know is people become chemically dependent on drugs, narcotics. Physically and mentally. The notion that only "brain diseased people" get addicted to drugs sounds like a thesis of a dope using med student.

 

What we do not know, and what the hypothesis (educated guesses) you used to support his notion, is what is unknown and the subject of changing research.

[thomastmc]

Welcome to (1) College "research" center and their (2) hypothesis and (3) ambiguity as illustrated in "your" examples:

Ambiguity to support a hypothesis: "science is beginning to learn". Would science be the Austin Research Center or someone else?

Hypothesis and Ambiguity: It appears that a person must have, wait, here comes the empirical scientific term "what it takes" to ... here it comes ... "become dependent on drugs."

"Evolving", meaning still changing, research... according to DSM criteria (that would be selecting a specific set of criteria that supports their hypothesis.)

What we know is people become chemically dependent on drugs, narcotics. Physically and mentally. The notion that only "brain diseased people" get addicted to drugs sounds like a thesis of a dope using med student.

What we do not know, and what the hypothesis (educated guesses) you used to support his notion, is what is unknown and the subject of changing research.

You do understand that the page was created to dispel myths about addiction for laymen...

You should contact the University of Texas at Austin and explain to them your expertise and objections to the data they've collected themselves and from other research scientists.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/

ASREC is a group of scientists whose mission is to communicate the latest findings in Addiction Science to the public, in terms that make the message easy to understand. Learn more about us from this website.

[MorganX]

You do understand that the page was created to dispel myths about addiction for laymen...

You should contact the University of Texas at Austin and explain to them your expertise and objections to the data they've collected themselves and from other research scientists.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/asrec/

 

 

It would be foolish to object to hypothesis, regardless of the university. If you dispel a myth, with hypothesis, you haven't actually dispelled anything, and you surely haven't prevented drug addictioin. What they should do is explain to all the rehab centers they do not need to exist because drugs are not addictive.

 

As I said, drug addiction or chemical dependency is a fact. The reasons as to why some become addicted and others do not, are "evolving" guesses or hypothesis. Such as is the case which much of human biology at the molecular\chemical level. You haven't shown me anything to contradict that.

 

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein

[thomastmc]

It would be foolish to object to hypothesis, regardless of the university. If you dispel a myth, with hypothesis, you haven't actually dispelled anything, and you surely haven't prevented drug addictioin. What they should do is explain to all the rehab centers they do not need to exist because drugs are not addictive.

 

As I said, drug addiction or chemical dependency is a fact. The reasons as to why some become addicted and others do not, are "evolving" guesses or hypothesis. Such as is the case which much of human biology at the molecular\chemical level. You haven't shown me anything to contradict that.

 

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein

It's funny how you regard it as foolish to object to what you deem to be their hypothesis, yet you persist.

It would be foolish to take away from their data the notion that they believe that addiction doesn't exist, and/or that rehabilitation is unnecessary.

Similarly, it would be foolish to make an argument against the peer reviewed research science compiled by PhDs that holds consensus among the experts in the field, based on nothing but the wording of a document meant specifically for laymen.

But, if you explain it too simply you'll inevitably get somebody that took college chemistry and biology courses who picks apart the work of PhDs because it wasn't detailed enough for their understanding. - Me

[brotherfromanothermother]

I wonder what "agenda" people are pushing on heroin addicts, oxycontin addicts, even Adderall addicts. Crack addicts, cocaine addicts. The only debate is the drugs that have what I would call, sustainable deleterious effects like weed. Some people can drive on it, their reaction time and motor skills aren't degraded enough to cause them to be a danger (yet) some cannot. Some girls are naked after one or two tokes, some girls leave with their dignity after they've smoked it all up.

 

Really, nothing but a classification to push an "agenda." Come on now.

Your comment shows you don't understand the definition of addiction if you did you would know that anyone who drinks a glass of wine daily can be considered "addicted" again "addiction" is noting more than a behavioral classification which is used primarily to push agendas. 

 

"I wonder what "agenda" people are pushing on heroin addicts, oxycontin addicts, even Adderall addicts" There you go you've just proven what I said, your the one labeling groups of people not me. 

[Knife Party]

what am I reading here? 

[KingCracker]

I use to smoke it years ago, I don't know about anyone else but I wasn't addicted to it. I was addicted to cigarettes, I never had a deep craving to smoke a joint.. ever. I haven't touched a joint in almost 10 years and I haven't touched a cigarette in 7.